I just really get annoyed by movie ad claims that do this. Especially when it's done by horror, drama, or sci-fi movies, the typical culprits. Cliche hook indeed.

If there's recent evidence to be had, then there's 'The Fourth Kind', a movie based on 'psychiatric interviews' with people who 'have been abducted by aliens and lived to tell the tale'. For all anyone could know, the interviewees could be schizophrenic or something, and the only thing prying people from their money is that they just want a good scare, with nothing to care about regarding the 'real life story'.

Yeah, then it turns out that the validity gets investigated throughout the film. So much for being based on a true story if there's investigatory stuff within a movie that probably should've been confirmed pre-production or pre-release.

For the record, I'm reading this part off the IMDB site, so yeah

Gah, sometimes I realize why I'm not an avid moviegoer kind of person.

They say that it's only "based" on the actual story. That means they already altered most of the happenings or events that took place in the original story. So technically, you should just ignore these things because they are pure crap.

A Beautiful Mind, for example. Bitch didn't even have visual hallucinations, he just heard voices sometimes. And they conveniently left out the part where he has gay sex. And the part where he abandons a girl he got pregnant, or the part where he gets divorced.

That statement is a complete cop-out on the directors part to evoke emotion in the audience because they think everything they see is true. It should never be stated even if completely faithful to an actual event or person's life.

"Based on a true story" is a loaded term and I think it all depends on the film. A film's story may be loosely accurate to the real story or the film may be fully accurate. It could also be somewhere in between, of course. I don't care too much, as long as it's good.

At 10/30/09 01:34 AM, InDuStRiEl wrote:
Some movies that "claim" they are real kinda suck, like Paranormal Activity.

I call bullshit, unless you have a source where the filmmakers said it's real.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Paranormal activity considered a mockumentary?

Yes, it is. It's shot like a documentary but it's fictitious. There's only one mockumentary I know where if you saw it on TV, you might just think it's real, and that's Man Bites Dog. It's about an eccentric serial killer who lets a camera crew follow him around. There's definitely no fantasy or sci-fi to it.

At 10/30/09 03:50 AM, BlackClown wrote:
Milk is a BEVERAGE.
We are talking about MOVIES.
Those pictures of lost children on milk cartons are REAL, please call them if you see them. Besides, milk has been around for almost 300 years it did not come out last year.

Although the line is considered a marketing technique more than anything (at least, in the general sens;, I hate the view that the only thing the film industry is concerned with is profit, but I'm rambling), as the audience, we should keep in mind that there's a world of film, and the world we live in. Some facts have to be distorted for the sake of entertainment in film (someone mentioned A Beautiful Mind, a textbook example of this I'd say). Techniques can be used to really capture a sense of "realism" in film, but it's a sketchy argument all the same. EclecticEnnui mentioned Man Bites Dog, a good example of a sort of "fake realism". I don't really know the film you're referring to Mr. H-O-S, unfortunately.

Actually, most films with a historical examination would fall into this, and suffer as a result via immense (and sometimes poorly devised) revisionism, like The Deer Hunter, or a similar film. Westerns tend to pull this off a little easier because the conventions are laid out a little clearer. I digress, I think.

Some films can pull this off as a result of people passing the message around. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre for instance, is barely true at all when you look at the details, despite claims otherwise (in the same way that many other barely-true horror films using elements of Ed Gein's personality as part of the monster are not). As much as it might sound like a cliche when it's just thrown off the back of a promotion, I think it's effective, at least to some, in extreme circumstances.

And Fargo does it hilariously, again off of bizarre/extreme events. The main issue now, is that when a film might use this phrase tongue-in-cheek, they'll be "ripping off Fargo". That makes me sad.

There's "A true story" which indicates the closest to the recorded truth, usually reserved for biographical movies where the makers worked closely with the subject or the family and friends of the subject.

There's "Based on a true story" which is slightly more removed. This is one you'll find alot in sports movies which will keep the basics true but add in all sorts of romance or personal drama tht has no baring on reality.

Then there's "Inspired by true events" which is the one that horror movies like to use. This is the most removed and basically means "this guy said this happened to him once and we made a movie that was kind of like that."

There's "A true story" which indicates the closest to the recorded truth, usually reserved for biographical movies where the makers worked closely with the subject or the family and friends of the subject.

There's "Based on a true story" which is slightly more removed. This is one you'll find alot in sports movies which will keep the basics true but add in all sorts of romance or personal drama tht has no baring on reality.

Then there's "Inspired by true events" which is the one that horror movies like to use. This is the most removed and basically means "this guy said this happened to him once and we made a movie that was kind of like that."

I like to think that the second and third criterion are essentially the same and in general if you see the words "true story" or anything similar to that, unless it's a biography, 99% of it will be outright fabrication and the only "truth" being that the names are the same.